All you need to do is watch my parents use the internet (Google search and adsense laden sites) to realize that a HUGE portion of Google's revenue is based on tricking non-geeky folks into clicking on things that they didn't know were ads. While the right-hand ads are somewhat clear, the top ads (nearly white, right near the #1 result) are NOT and novice users when routinely click on that ad when asked to click on the first result.
Adsense advertisers are constantly rewarded for walking the fine line between blending in and just outright tricking their users.
While maybe this isn't outright EVIL, it certainly is disingenuous.
The top results aren't just ads, they're still relevant results and sometimes it's just another good result in the list. It doesn't cost the user anything to click on it, so I don't exactly follow why this is evil trickery...
Wait, what? A paid ad posing as content isn't trickery?
First of all, that argument would extend to adsense... What's wrong with a web publisher making ads look like legitimate content?
It'd also extend to more search results... What'd be wrong about having the first 10 results be ads instead of the first 1-2?
Oooh, it'd also extend to paid editorials. How about I pay the New York Times for a positive review of my company? Should that be labeled as an ad?
The point is that there is an implicit promise with content that it's there based on its merits rather than based on who paid to have it there. There's no victim if the ad is approximately as relevant as an organic search result-- but if it's going to the highest bidder, there's no guarantee that this is the case.
Adsense advertisers are constantly rewarded for walking the fine line between blending in and just outright tricking their users.
While maybe this isn't outright EVIL, it certainly is disingenuous.